TARA CHAND Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 29-4-1988 in proceedings under section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

(2.) IN proceedings under section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Assistance Consolidation Officer proposed a chak. Objection was filed by Horam Singh for allotting a chak on plot no. 625, is largest holding. The objection was partly allowed by the Consolidation Officer. Thereupon, Horam Singh died. The petitioners are three sons of late Horam Singh. IN revision, at the instance of respondent no 2, the Deputy Director of Consolidation made certain changes and a portion of plot no. 625 has been included in the chak of respondent no. 2. It is against this order that the petitioners have come before this Court by means of present writ petition.

(3.) HAVING heard and considered the submissions put forward by S/Sri Khare and Misra and, gone through the judgment and orders available on record, I am of the view that no error could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which may call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. In the matter of allotment of chak certain principles have been laid down, and according to those principles, efforts should be made to allot chak to a tenure holder on original holding near his original holding and near the source of irrigation. In the present case, on the own showing of the petitioners admittedly they have been allotted a chak on their largest holding, namely, plot no. 625. The point to be considered here is that as to whether the whole area of plot no. 625* should have been allotted to the petitioner, or, inclusion of some of its part in the chak of respondent no. 2 is reasonable. In paragraphs 16 and 19 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that tube well is standing on the area which has been allotted either to Horam Singh or to his sons. If the tube well stands either on the plot of Horam Singh or his sons, there should be no greivance for the petitioners. The objection of the petitioners in regard to distance of second chak has been disputed by the respondent no. 2. However, this is a factual aspect and this court cannot be called upon to decide the same.